IRC log of rdf-wg on 2012-05-23
Timestamps are in UTC.
- 14:38:16 [RRSAgent]
- RRSAgent has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:38:16 [RRSAgent]
- logging to http://www.w3.org/2012/05/23-rdf-wg-irc
- 14:38:18 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 14:38:18 [Zakim]
- Zakim has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:38:20 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 73394
- 14:38:20 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 22 minutes
- 14:38:21 [trackbot]
- Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
- 14:38:21 [trackbot]
- Date: 23 May 2012
- 14:38:26 [ivan]
- Chair: Guus
- 14:39:20 [ivan]
- ivan has changed the topic to: RDF Call agenda: http://www.w3.org/2011/rdf-wg/wiki/Meetings:Telecon2012.05.23
- 14:44:52 [manu1]
- manu1 has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:48:10 [Zakim]
- SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has now started
- 14:48:18 [Zakim]
- +Guus
- 14:48:22 [Zakim]
- +??P3
- 14:48:31 [yvesr]
- Zakim, ??P3 is me
- 14:48:31 [Zakim]
- +yvesr; got it
- 14:48:47 [Guus]
- Guus has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:48:59 [Guus]
- zakim, who is here?
- 14:48:59 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Guus, yvesr
- 14:49:00 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see Guus, manu1, Zakim, RRSAgent, mlnt, mischat, yvesr, ivan, davidwood, trackbot, NickH, manu, sandro, ericP
- 14:49:37 [cygri]
- cygri has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:49:43 [yvesr]
- i think i am supposed to scribe - but i didn't do it in a looong time so will probably need some help :)
- 14:52:51 [tbaker]
- tbaker has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:55:26 [swh]
- swh has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:56:31 [AZ]
- AZ has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:57:01 [yvesr]
- scribenick: yvesr
- 14:57:57 [LeeF]
- LeeF has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:58:08 [ScottB]
- ScottB has joined #rdf-wg
- 14:58:25 [Zakim]
- +??P4
- 14:58:42 [AZ]
- zakim, ??p4 is me
- 14:58:42 [Zakim]
- +AZ; got it
- 14:58:51 [sandro]
- trackbot, start meeting
- 14:58:53 [Zakim]
- +EricP
- 14:58:53 [trackbot]
- RRSAgent, make logs world
- 14:58:55 [trackbot]
- Zakim, this will be 73394
- 14:58:55 [Zakim]
- ok, trackbot; I see SW_RDFWG()11:00AM scheduled to start in 2 minutes
- 14:58:56 [trackbot]
- Meeting: RDF Working Group Teleconference
- 14:58:56 [trackbot]
- Date: 23 May 2012
- 14:59:35 [Arnaud]
- Arnaud has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:00:30 [gavinc]
- gavinc has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:00:36 [swh]
- Zakim, what is the code?
- 15:00:36 [Zakim]
- the conference code is 73394 (tel:+1.617.761.6200 sip:zakim@voip.w3.org), swh
- 15:01:35 [gavinc]
- Zakim, who is here?
- 15:01:35 [Zakim]
- I notice SW_RDFWG()11:00AM has restarted
- 15:01:36 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Guus, yvesr, AZ, EricP, Sandro, Tony, Arnaud, ??P12, gavinc
- 15:01:36 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see gavinc, Arnaud, ScottB, LeeF, AZ, swh, tbaker, cygri, Guus, manu1, Zakim, RRSAgent, mlnt, mischat, yvesr, ivan, davidwood, trackbot, NickH, manu, sandro, ericP
- 15:01:38 [Zakim]
- +??P14
- 15:01:41 [manu1]
- zakim, I am ??P12
- 15:01:41 [Zakim]
- +manu1; got it
- 15:01:44 [swh]
- Zakim, ??P14 is me
- 15:01:45 [Zakim]
- +swh; got it
- 15:01:46 [Zakim]
- +cygri
- 15:02:24 [Zakim]
- +??P17
- 15:02:30 [ivan]
- zakim, dial ivan-voip
- 15:02:30 [Zakim]
- ok, ivan; the call is being made
- 15:02:34 [Zakim]
- +Ivan
- 15:02:59 [tbaker]
- zakim, ??P17 is tbaker
- 15:03:02 [Zakim]
- +tbaker; got it
- 15:03:21 [Guus]
- zakim, who is here?
- 15:03:26 [Zakim]
- On the phone I see Guus, yvesr, AZ, EricP, Sandro, Tony, Arnaud, manu1, gavinc, swh, cygri, tbaker, Ivan
- 15:03:30 [Zakim]
- On IRC I see gavinc, Arnaud, ScottB, LeeF, AZ, swh, tbaker, cygri, Guus, manu1, Zakim, RRSAgent, mlnt, mischat, yvesr, ivan, davidwood, trackbot, NickH, manu, sandro, ericP
- 15:04:39 [yvesr]
- Guus: propose to accept minutes of last week
- 15:05:00 [yvesr]
- Guus: resolve to accept minutes
- 15:05:17 [manu1]
- RESOLVED: Accept minutes from last week.
- 15:05:24 [gavinc]
- RESOLVED: accept the minutes of the 16 May telecon
- 15:06:01 [yvesr]
- Guus: the pending review list is empty
- 15:07:07 [manu1]
- q+ to voice concerns about TURTLE / N-Triples.
- 15:07:10 [yvesr]
- Guus: First, proposal to split the turtle document in two
- 15:07:19 [yvesr]
- Guus: turtle / n-triples
- 15:07:45 [Guus]
- ack manu1
- 15:07:45 [Zakim]
- manu1, you wanted to voice concerns about TURTLE / N-Triples.
- 15:07:49 [ivan]
- ack manu1
- 15:07:51 [yvesr]
- manu1: general concern that it is moving in the wrong direction
- 15:08:23 [yvesr]
- manu1: it would be best if Turtle would be *the* language to express RDF natively - primary RDF serialisation language
- 15:08:43 [yvesr]
- manu1: I am not going to raise a formal objection
- 15:09:04 [yvesr]
- gavinc: ntriples will still be a subset of the turtle language - the main change is to the document structure
- 15:09:26 [yvesr]
- gavinc: there are a lot of things that only apply to ntriples
- 15:09:40 [yvesr]
- gavinc: having them in a separate document makes the turtle document easier to write
- 15:09:50 [yvesr]
- manu1: could send the wrong message to the RDF community
- 15:10:09 [yvesr]
- manu1: turtle should include n-triples and n-quads
- 15:10:16 [yvesr]
- manu1: it should be the same language
- 15:10:33 [yvesr]
- gavinc: it is saying that n-triples shouldn't have its own media type, quite a strong statement
- 15:10:43 [yvesr]
- gavinc: we would have quite a lot of objections to that
- 15:10:54 [FabGandon]
- FabGandon has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:11:04 [yvesr]
- Guus: it should all be solved by a very clear statement
- 15:11:12 [yvesr]
- Guus: the reasons for splitting the document are very strong
- 15:11:38 [ivan]
- q+
- 15:11:42 [yvesr]
- manu1: n-triples and turtle have so many similarities that not merging them will be confusing
- 15:11:52 [yvesr]
- manu1: to the web developer community
- 15:12:03 [Guus]
- ack ivan
- 15:12:17 [Zakim]
- +[Sophia]
- 15:12:17 [yvesr]
- ivan: i understand where manu is coming from, but it is more a question of image rather than technology
- 15:12:30 [FabGandon]
- Zakim, Sophia is me
- 15:12:30 [Zakim]
- +FabGandon; got it
- 15:12:31 [yvesr]
- ivan: perhaps we should re-brand n-triples as 'mini-turtle'?
- 15:12:45 [yvesr]
- ivan: the title should make it clear that it is the stripped-down version of turtle
- 15:12:54 [manu1]
- q+ to say make it TURTLE Lite and I'm happy.
- 15:13:01 [yvesr]
- ivan: the document which describes n-triples is describing a small subset of turtle
- 15:13:05 [sandro]
- +0.5 "miniturtle"
- 15:13:10 [yvesr]
- gavinc: it should include language saying that you should use turtlw
- 15:13:15 [yvesr]
- s/turtlw/turtle
- 15:13:28 [Guus]
- ack manu1
- 15:13:28 [Zakim]
- manu1, you wanted to say make it TURTLE Lite and I'm happy.
- 15:13:38 [yvesr]
- manu1: make the name of the document turtle-light or mini-turtle and i am happy
- 15:13:59 [cygri]
- q+
- 15:14:06 [sandro]
- actually, "microturtle" may be better. It's MUCH smaller than turtle.
- 15:14:07 [yvesr]
- gavinc: calling it n-triples is causing problems, because it's not exaclty what is known as n-triples now
- 15:14:38 [yvesr]
- cygri: this working group isn't about bringing new stuff to new communities, it is also serving the needs of the existing RDF dev community
- 15:14:54 [yvesr]
- cygri: from this point of view it does make sense to split the documents and it does make sense to keep the same name
- 15:15:03 [manu1]
- q+ to talk about existing users.
- 15:15:21 [Guus]
- ack cygri
- 15:15:26 [ericP]
- manu1, how do you like "The N-Triples Sublanguage of Turtle"? ('cause i think that we want current N-Triples use cases to migrate to this new form.)
- 15:15:30 [yvesr]
- cygri: i would be concerned of inventing new names for things that have been around for a long time
- 15:15:39 [sandro]
- how about: RDF N-Triples - a microturtle syntax :-)
- 15:15:44 [Guus]
- ack manu1
- 15:15:44 [Zakim]
- manu1, you wanted to talk about existing users.
- 15:15:48 [yvesr]
- Guus: let's keep this brief
- 15:16:02 [yvesr]
- manu1: the people who are already using it shouldn't be confused by a change of name
- 15:16:09 [yvesr]
- manu1: as they're already using it
- 15:16:20 [yvesr]
- ivan: gavinc can find something nice
- 15:16:44 [yvesr]
- Guus: there are strong arguments for splitting the document into two, i'd propose we resolve that
- 15:16:59 [yvesr]
- PROPOSAL: SPlit the Turtle document into two - turtle and n-triples
- 15:17:00 [ericP]
- +1
- 15:17:05 [sandro]
- +1
- 15:17:07 [manu1]
- +1
- 15:17:09 [tbaker]
- +1
- 15:17:10 [yvesr]
- s/SPlit/Split
- 15:17:12 [yvesr]
- +1
- 15:17:13 [gavinc]
- +1
- 15:17:16 [Arnaud]
- +1
- 15:17:22 [ivan]
- +1 with the proviso that the n-triple document's title may be different
- 15:17:23 [manu1]
- +1 (as long as we name the new N-Triples document with a clear TURTLE Lite) message.
- 15:17:25 [sandro]
- ( TinyTurtle )
- 15:17:25 [cygri]
- +1
- 15:17:32 [yvesr]
- RESOLVED: Split the Turtle document into two - turtle and n-triples
- 15:18:02 [yvesr]
- Guus: first question was the whitespace question in Turtle
- 15:18:15 [yvesr]
- gavinc: this is whitespace in n-triples
- 15:18:48 [yvesr]
- gavinc: if there are whitespaces rules, they are at the top of the appendix, not in the grammar part of the appendix, and they should be in the grammar part as well
- 15:18:57 [yvesr]
- Guus: so we reached consensus on this
- 15:19:07 [yvesr]
- gavinc: yes, we reached consensus
- 15:19:57 [yvesr]
- ericP: there was some discussions about using exactly one whitespace
- 15:20:09 [yvesr]
- gavinc: the grammar should be somewhat loose
- 15:20:26 [yvesr]
- gavinc: you can have multiple empty lines, multiple whitespaces
- 15:20:28 [sandro]
- Maybe "Useful Subsets of Turtle" *sigh*
- 15:20:57 [yvesr]
- gavinc: there should be some canonicalisation rules that enable one triple to be expressed in exactly the same way
- 15:21:04 [yvesr]
- ericP: canonicalisation of order as well?
- 15:21:19 [cygri]
- gavinc++
- 15:21:19 [yvesr]
- gavinc: it could include that as well, but triple-specific at first
- 15:21:22 [sandro]
- q+ to ask about rdf canonicalization (including bnodes)
- 15:21:49 [manu1]
- q+ to say this applies to JSON-LD Normalization.
- 15:21:51 [yvesr]
- ericP: is there a value to writing those rules as SHOULD, as parser-write will have to handle all cases anyway
- 15:22:02 [Guus]
- ack sandro
- 15:22:02 [Zakim]
- sandro, you wanted to ask about rdf canonicalization (including bnodes)
- 15:22:05 [swh]
- I see the value of having a recommendation for serilising triples
- 15:22:18 [swh]
- but \r\n for e.g. isn't grep friendly
- 15:22:29 [yvesr]
- sandro: it would be interesting to have the whole document, including bnodes, to be canonicalised
- 15:22:49 [gavinc]
- mmm... graph isomorphism for fun and ... no, not profit
- 15:22:49 [yvesr]
- sandro: it would be nice to be able to compare whether two graphs are equal by just comparing their documents
- 15:22:49 [swh]
- canonicalising bNodes is hard
- 15:22:50 [ericP]
- i'd rather produce the profile when we have a whay to do whole document canonicalization
- 15:23:04 [Zakim]
- +LeeF
- 15:23:24 [yvesr]
- ericP: if we waited for the canonicalisation, we would have a big chunk to give to the world
- 15:23:25 [gavinc]
- canonicalising bNodes is not only hard but GI-Hard
- 15:23:49 [yvesr]
- sandro: canonical n-triples making it easier to write parsers
- 15:24:01 [yvesr]
- s/n-triples/triples
- 15:24:02 [Guus]
- ack manu1
- 15:24:02 [Zakim]
- manu1, you wanted to say this applies to JSON-LD Normalization.
- 15:24:18 [yvesr]
- manu1: we have been working on this canonicalisation problem since a year
- 15:24:35 [yvesr]
- manu1: right now we serialize it to nquads (in json-ld)
- 15:24:47 [gavinc]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graph_isomorphism_problem
- 15:24:47 [yvesr]
- manu1: the tricky part is figuring out how many spaces you put between things
- 15:25:00 [manu1]
- http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/rdf-graph-normalization/
- 15:25:05 [yvesr]
- manu1: the very tricky part is figuring out the canonicalisation algorithm
- 15:25:20 [yvesr]
- manu1: it can get very complicated
- 15:25:38 [yvesr]
- manu1: in the case of http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/rdf-graph-normalization/ the output is some very specific n-quad document
- 15:25:46 [swh]
- q+
- 15:25:50 [yvesr]
- manu1: the graph normalisation algorithm is very hard
- 15:26:11 [yvesr]
- swh: some times you can't afford to do canonicalisation
- 15:26:11 [Guus]
- acl swh
- 15:26:15 [yvesr]
- swh: especially on large graphs
- 15:26:18 [Guus]
- ack swh
- 15:26:21 [sandro]
- q+
- 15:26:34 [Guus]
- ack sandro
- 15:26:48 [gavinc]
- sandro++
- 15:26:49 [cygri]
- sandro++
- 15:26:51 [yvesr]
- sandro: if the graph happens to be canonical, then the bytes in the documents will be the same for the two same graphs
- 15:27:02 [ericP]
- we speak of `grep`, but i think the only tool that's enabled by canonicalized whitespace is some peculiar use cases of `cut`
- 15:27:06 [yvesr]
- sandro: that's one benefit of doing so
- 15:27:19 [yvesr]
- sandro: assuming canonicalisation handles b-nodes and triple ordering
- 15:27:44 [yvesr]
- manu1: as soon as you add b-nodes to the equation, it starts to be very hard to process large graphs
- 15:27:54 [yvesr]
- manu1: we have not found a polynomial-time algorithm to do that
- 15:27:58 [sandro]
- isnt graph isomorphism np-complete?
- 15:28:11 [yvesr]
- manu1: the canonicalisation itself is easy to define though
- 15:28:15 [pchampin]
- pchampin has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:28:21 [sandro]
- +1 :-)
- 15:28:36 [gavinc]
- sandro, GI-Hard
- 15:28:37 [Zakim]
- +??P6
- 15:28:43 [ericP]
- Guus: how much does this matter to the Turtle document
- 15:28:44 [pchampin]
- zakim, P6 is me
- 15:28:44 [Zakim]
- sorry, pchampin, I do not recognize a party named 'P6'
- 15:28:45 [gavinc]
- got it's very own complexity class
- 15:28:48 [yvesr]
- Guus: let's move on to the second issue
- 15:28:49 [manu1]
- gavinc: This doesn't have anything to do with TURTLE, so we can move on.
- 15:28:51 [sandro]
- Ah, I see.
- 15:28:53 [pchampin]
- zakim, ??P6 is me
- 15:28:53 [Zakim]
- +pchampin; got it
- 15:28:57 [ericP]
- gavinc: because we've separated N-Triples, absolutely none
- 15:29:29 [yvesr]
- sandro: strict vs. loose parsing - http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-rdf-wg/2012May/0408.html
- 15:30:01 [yvesr]
- sandro: I tried implementing Turtle and realised I could make it much easier if I didn't bother to check in the lexer little bits of the URI syntax
- 15:30:07 [cygri]
- q+
- 15:30:15 [yvesr]
- sandro: the grammar of Turtle enforces some rules about what can be in an IRI
- 15:30:18 [LeeF]
- Is there a test case that distinguishes between it being enforced in the lexer versus being enforced higher up in the chain?
- 15:30:30 [LeeF]
- Right, that's what I was expecting (what Sandro just said)
- 15:30:33 [yvesr]
- sandro: I could write a legitimate parser by taking it out
- 15:30:45 [yvesr]
- sandro: We should at least state it
- 15:30:49 [swh]
- I don't see how it has any baring on the grammar
- 15:30:52 [Guus]
- ack cygri
- 15:31:34 [yvesr]
- cygri: two issues - is it ok to have a definition of what an IRI is in Turtle?
- 15:31:36 [sandro]
- I've backed off the "fix them up" idea.
- 15:31:43 [gavinc]
- +q to talk about the nature of the grammar
- 15:32:01 [yvesr]
- cygri: the other issue - editorial issue: how exactly valid IRIs in Turtle are described in the document
- 15:32:24 [yvesr]
- cygri: an option is to not define what's inside the angle bracket, and point to the IRI RFC
- 15:32:55 [Guus]
- q?
- 15:33:07 [yvesr]
- sandro: added to that there is a conformance issue
- 15:33:23 [yvesr]
- sandro: can i have a conformant Turtle parser that accepts IRIs that are not in the Turtle grammar
- 15:33:38 [yvesr]
- sandro: the tradition in our community has been that it was OK
- 15:33:50 [Guus]
- ack gavinc
- 15:33:50 [Zakim]
- gavinc, you wanted to talk about the nature of the grammar
- 15:33:56 [yvesr]
- sandro: as long as I can call it a Turtle parser without that, it's OK
- 15:34:08 [yvesr]
- gavinc: the grammar specifies a grammar, not *the* grammar
- 15:34:30 [yvesr]
- gavinc: if you write a different grammar, for example one that uses different production rules for IRIs, it still meets the same rules
- 15:34:35 [sandro]
- sandro: As long as I can implement a turtle parser that doesn't reject bad syntax-IRIs, I'm okay.
- 15:35:06 [sandro]
- q?
- 15:35:08 [yvesr]
- gavinc: what matters is if i put something that is not an IRI inside a <..>
- 15:35:12 [sandro]
- q+
- 15:35:17 [cygri]
- q+
- 15:35:20 [sandro]
- q-
- 15:35:24 [ericP]
- q?
- 15:35:26 [yvesr]
- gavinc: you can't have an RDF graph where one of the node isn't a literal or an IRI
- 15:35:43 [yvesr]
- sandro: checking whether something is in an IRI is incredibly hard
- 15:35:51 [yvesr]
- sandro: it's programmatically intractable
- 15:35:56 [Guus]
- ack cygri
- 15:36:05 [yvesr]
- sandro: what you can do is to have some heuristics checking whether it might be ok
- 15:36:39 [yvesr]
- cygri: we should tightened up the conformance clause in Turtle
- 15:36:57 [yvesr]
- cygri: if there was another grammar that ends matching the same strings, then that's conformant
- 15:36:58 [Zakim]
- -Ivan
- 15:37:11 [swh]
- +1 to cygri
- 15:37:16 [gavinc]
- +1
- 15:37:17 [ericP]
- +1
- 15:37:20 [yvesr]
- cygri: the Turtle language is not its grammar
- 15:37:27 [ivan]
- zakim, dial ivan-voip
- 15:37:27 [Zakim]
- ok, ivan; the call is being made
- 15:37:29 [Zakim]
- +Ivan
- 15:37:33 [pchampin]
- +1
- 15:37:45 [sandro]
- +0 cyrgi. I can live with conformance defines Turtle Document, and says a Turtle Parser handles Turtle Documents, and is silent on how to handle non-Turtle documents.
- 15:37:51 [yvesr]
- cygri: there are different needs for conformance for different situations
- 15:38:09 [yvesr]
- cygri: it naturally gives rise to a Turtle validator - it's obvious that we need it
- 15:38:09 [sandro]
- q+ to ask about negative syntax tests
- 15:38:17 [yvesr]
- cygri: it should dig into the IRIs and check their validity
- 15:38:20 [Guus]
- ack sandro
- 15:38:20 [Zakim]
- sandro, you wanted to ask about negative syntax tests
- 15:38:23 [yvesr]
- sandro: that's reasonable to me
- 15:38:33 [yvesr]
- sandro: we should include negative syntax test
- 15:38:45 [yvesr]
- sandro: it would be OK to fail the negative syntax test
- 15:39:03 [dlehn]
- dlehn has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:39:24 [yvesr]
- cygri: according to what I said earlier, I would say no
- 15:39:25 [dlongley]
- dlongley has joined #rdf-wg
- 15:39:28 [ericP]
- for the implementation report, can we go to PR witout any implementations passing the negative syntax tests?
- 15:39:42 [yvesr]
- sandro: we should mention this class of things that are Turtle validators
- 15:39:49 [yvesr]
- sandro: and that those negative tests apply to those
- 15:39:51 [sandro]
- sandro: Maybe the negative syntax texts are only for Turtle Validators.
- 15:40:01 [yvesr]
- cygri: the html5 spec spells out all that, a good example to look at
- 15:40:31 [yvesr]
- cygri: validators, user agents, etc.
- 15:40:37 [ericP]
- i think talking about implementations, conformance levels etc, will make the spec much much bigger and more opaque
- 15:40:58 [yvesr]
- Guus: I'd like to handle that while we're at the CR stage
- 15:41:10 [cygri]
- ericP, read the html5 conformance section before saying that
- 15:41:23 [sandro]
- cygri, you're talking about http://www.w3.org/TR/html5/infrastructure.html#conformance-requirements ?
- 15:41:27 [yvesr]
- gavinc: i think it's a 'do nothing' resolution
- 15:41:42 [gavinc]
- s/gavinc/ericP
- 15:41:46 [cygri]
- sandro, yes
- 15:41:55 [yvesr]
- Guus: my take is that it requires a small rephrasing of the conformance note
- 15:42:03 [gavinc]
- It requires WRITING a conformence clause
- 15:42:34 [cygri]
- q+
- 15:42:36 [yvesr]
- sandro: something that says that the grammar can be drammatically simplified
- 15:43:25 [yvesr]
- cygri: it is a bad idea to say that - chances are that if you do not check the IRIs, you might break your system - because other components might
- 15:43:40 [sandro]
- q+
- 15:43:42 [yvesr]
- cygri: I think it's not a good idea to tell to people they can cut corners
- 15:43:48 [Guus]
- ack cygri
- 15:43:54 [Guus]
- ack sandro
- 15:44:02 [gavinc]
- ... ....
- 15:44:03 [yvesr]
- cygri: it's OK to phrase conformance slightly differently, but we shouldn't encourage to not check that
- 15:44:35 [gavinc]
- There are no RDF graphs that cannot be represented in Turtle
- 15:44:35 [swh]
- we're talking about extreme corner cases here
- 15:44:54 [yvesr]
- sandro: most systems are opaque with respect to IRIs
- 15:45:15 [yvesr]
- swh: the most used parser at the moment does check them
- 15:45:20 [yvesr]
- s/swh/cygri
- 15:45:22 [manu1]
- q+ to ask about what IRIs cannot be serialized in TURTLE - example?
- 15:45:58 [sandro]
- manu, any IRI with | in it, for instance.
- 15:46:14 [manu1]
- q-
- 15:46:23 [yvesr]
- cygri: we shouldn't specify error-handling - it is unlikely that there is one behavior that works for all situations
- 15:46:32 [yvesr]
- cygri: we should leave the corner-cases unspecified
- 15:46:44 [manu1]
- q+ to express concern over IRI opacity.
- 15:46:55 [yvesr]
- cygri: the cost/benefit decision is for implementers to make
- 15:47:09 [yvesr]
- Guus: some of these things we can still handle at CR time
- 15:47:17 [yvesr]
- sandro: we don't have to handle it now
- 15:47:18 [manu1]
- q-
- 15:47:47 [manu1]
- q+ to raise issue about NQuads in TURTLE...
- 15:47:58 [yvesr]
- Guus: each meeting seems to float towards a Last Call graph, but we're still not there this week - i hope we can do it next week
- 15:48:21 [yvesr]
- manu1: I feel pretty strongly that we need named quads in turtle
- 15:48:35 [swh]
- we have discussed it a lot
- 15:48:47 [cygri]
- manu1, there were a few emails about this
- 15:48:50 [swh]
- Garlik/Experian WILL formally object to including quads in turtle
- 15:48:51 [cygri]
- 2000 or so
- 15:48:51 [gavinc]
- This issue has been raised a number of times. Strong objections were raised as to making text/turtle produce quads rather than Triples
- 15:48:52 [sandro]
- q+
- 15:49:00 [yvesr]
- manu1: if we don't put it in there, people are going to abandon Turtle in the long run
- 15:49:13 [yvesr]
- sandro: there's nothing wrong with that - people will move over to a better language
- 15:49:36 [yvesr]
- manu1: if we solve that problem now, the cost to society is lower
- 15:49:46 [yvesr]
- sandro: perhaps we could specify it as an extension to this language
- 15:49:58 [yvesr]
- manu1: such migrations are not painless
- 15:50:02 [gavinc]
- Please refer to perma thread on @graph, TriG, etc
- 15:50:29 [yvesr]
- manu1: is there anyone in the group who thinks that we don't need named graphs?
- 15:50:51 [LeeF]
- Just roundtrip with trig instead, no?
- 15:50:56 [sandro]
- manu, the problem is that GRAPHs turns out to be very hard for this group to sort out.
- 15:50:58 [Guus]
- q?
- 15:50:58 [ivan]
- q+
- 15:51:04 [yvesr]
- manu1: it would be good to be able to go from JSON-LD to Turtle and back to JSON-LD
- 15:51:07 [gavinc]
- ack manu1
- 15:51:07 [Zakim]
- manu1, you wanted to raise issue about NQuads in TURTLE...
- 15:51:10 [Guus]
- ack sandro
- 15:51:15 [cygri]
- ericP, twoples were a mistake already. uniples!
- 15:51:17 [Guus]
- ack manu1
- 15:51:23 [yvesr]
- sandro: I think Turtle is well-understood as not including named graphs
- 15:51:30 [yvesr]
- sandro: if we include them, we need to come up with a different name
- 15:51:43 [ericP]
- +1 to sandro, we'll need a name like "Turtle" for a "turtle-like" language
- 15:51:46 [LeeF]
- I agree with Sandro.
- 15:51:56 [LeeF]
- SteveH strongly agrees.
- 15:52:05 [gavinc]
- Many people stronly agree
- 15:52:15 [yvesr]
- manu1: I am worried it's language proliferation all over again
- 15:52:30 [Guus]
- ack ivan
- 15:52:39 [yvesr]
- ivan: I disagree - I think the question about whether named graphs is important is rethorical
- 15:52:44 [sandro]
- I am totally sympathetic to manu's position .... but I don't think we can do it that way.
- 15:52:49 [yvesr]
- ivan: it has been the main topic of discussion in the group for months
- 15:53:03 [yvesr]
- ivan: there should be a separate TriG - Turtle + Named Graphs
- 15:53:18 [yvesr]
- ivan: a number of existing deployment need to know in advance what's in the data
- 15:53:36 [yvesr]
- ivan: whether it is just Turtle or whether it includes Named Graphs as well
- 15:53:41 [sandro]
- -1 on Steve's requirement that graph-syntax and and turtle be disjoint.
- 15:54:01 [yvesr]
- ivan: any Turtle documents should be a valid TriG document - it's not a different language
- 15:54:01 [pchampin]
- +∞
- 15:54:03 [sandro]
- +1 any turtle documement is a graph-syntax language.
- 15:54:10 [manu1]
- I would be fine with TURTLE 2.0 including graph syntax.
- 15:54:11 [yvesr]
- ivan: it is separating the concepts very clearly
- 15:54:21 [swh]
- objects is too strong
- 15:54:25 [manu1]
- (but this is something we need for Web Payments, PaySwarm and JSON-LD)
- 15:54:26 [swh]
- q+ to explain
- 15:54:37 [swh]
- exactly :)
- 15:55:00 [yvesr]
- ivan: when we get to the point where TriG is defined, JSON-LD has a round-trip with TriG
- 15:55:25 [yvesr]
- manu1: I am deferring to the group, but I think it is a mistake
- 15:55:32 [yvesr]
- Guus: we're going to leave at that for the moment
- 15:55:51 [yvesr]
- Guus: is next week possible for the Last Call?
- 15:56:15 [yvesr]
- gavinc: in the todo list, we need to find the balance between sandro and cygri's points
- 15:56:26 [swh]
- q-
- 15:57:20 [yvesr]
- gavinc: validation, conformance, implementation may make the document more complicated
- 15:57:37 [gavinc]
- s/gavinc/ericP
- 15:57:45 [gavinc]
- +1 to cygri writing some text! :D
- 15:57:46 [yvesr]
- cygri: i could draft five sentences that I'd like to see in the conformance section
- 15:57:57 [sandro]
- +1 richard proposing text for Conformance
- 15:58:29 [yvesr]
- ACTION: cygri to draft five sentences for the conformance section in Turtle
- 15:58:29 [trackbot]
- Created ACTION-173 - Draft five sentences for the conformance section in Turtle [on Richard Cyganiak - due 2012-05-30].
- 15:59:36 [manu1]
- For the record - I'm fine with N-Triples renamed as (Turtle Lite/Micro/etc.), Turtle as Turtle, TRiG as Turtle 1.1
- 16:00:07 [sandro]
- sandro: And of course my non-validating Turtle Parser is going to allow @prefix/prefix to mix with period and non-period.
- 16:00:46 [yvesr]
- Guus: let's move on to JSON-LD
- 16:00:59 [yvesr]
- Guus: let's not have a long discussion on this
- 16:01:20 [manu1]
- Topic: JSON-LD Syntax
- 16:01:22 [manu1]
- http://json-ld.org/spec/ED/json-ld-syntax/20120522/